Long before the tea party movement grabbed half a dozen Senate seats, before its early proponents ever even dreamed of wearing Colonial-era garb in public, there was longtime Texas Republican Ron Paul, the one guy in Congress trying to abolish the Federal Reserve and shrink the government into near nonexistence. Paul won a devoted-bordering-on-cultish following during his 2008 presidential run, one which, obviously, didn't work out. But now Paul is telling the Times that "its at least 50-50" that he'll try again in 2012, and this time, with the movement built largely on his libertarian philosophy now a real force in American politics and expected to be decisive in the Republican primaries.

Most Conservatives are not going to go for Dr. Pauls isolationist views on foreign policy

Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements, in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventionism  Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. 2. Protectionism  There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

- Wikipedia -

Dr. Paul is a non-interventionallist, not a isolationist - there's a difference.

Exactly..LOL! Actually, what will destroy Sarah is having her hair fixed by Bristol in the field, that there is a showstopper, the end, she might as well pack it up and go back to Alaska and stay and call Barbara Bush and tell her thanks for the advice....ROTFLMAO!

Palin might not run, and she might not win the primary if she does run, and she might not win the general election if she does win the primary... but no matter WHAT happens with Palin, it’s not going to have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that Ron Paul does or doesn’t do.

Srah now has a serious run at the candidacy. No one can top her in the line,simply beause they have been tpo cowardly to start early enough, by engaging the issues and America as she has.Palin has completed her rights of passage. Paul has not, and he has no way to do so in the time left.

Agreed. The Federal Reserve is in dire need of oversight, and he is apparently the first American since Andrew Jackson who is willing to take on the job.

I also have the highest respect for his very strong pro-life views.

So far as being an isolationist vs non-interventionist, I think it was entirely fair and proper for Dr. Paul to oppose the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the Congress as his conscience dictates when that action was put to a vote.

But once the majority supported the President’s decision to act, by continuing his opposition he became an isolationist.

We know the reason to do this is to divide the conservative votes ... thus allowing the progressives (that unite, no matter what or who they are behind their party candidate) and then once again they will win. For the Republicans to divide their votes is insane. Only one candidate per party is to be in the running after the primaries.

LOOK at what happened to HILLARY. It was almost impossible, yet she was leading, then they threw out Florida's votes and Ohio's(?) was it? Their votes too saying their primaries were too early, and Voila! Obama was suddenly the front runner and then the Candidate.

No bookie would have backed that bet. It happened. We all know the Clinton's have strong backing. Presto Chango it was all Obama.

If we did not experience it we would never believe it, would we?

47
posted on 12/13/2010 12:11:38 PM PST
by geologist
(The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.